Posted on 03/26/2017 11:12:31 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
March 24, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — I have been holding my opinion on Neil Gorsuch. From the time he was announced as Trump’s highly lauded Supreme Court nominee and then more information started to come out about him, there have been growing uncomfortable feelings about the nomination. And now, as the confirmation hearings have been underway, I am worried.
Despite effusive praise from numerous pro-life and pro-family leaders, this man is NOT, as Trump has repeatedly been told, another Scalia. In my view, the President has been misled – although Gorsuch does have praiseworthy characteristics as a justice and has made some excellent, major rulings.
But can we trust that he will courageously rule as the nation desperately needs him to rule on all of the most crucial issues? I think there are now legitimate doubts, although on many issues he will likely rule well.
During day three of the Senate confirmation hearings, Gorsuch was asked by Senator Dick Durbin whether the intentional taking of unborn life is wrong.
He responded, "The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That [decision] is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land."
To me, there was something unnerving about how far he went in accepting the current realities of that horrendous decision that was based on lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Gorsuch on Obergefell
Also during the confirmation hearings, in response to a question about same-sex “marriage” and the results of the Obergefell decision – which many consider an even more outrageously corrupt, activist Supreme Court decision than Roe v Wade — Gorsuch stated it “is absolutely settled law."
He did not just call it “settled law,” which one could say, well, yes, in legal terms that is what it could be said to be … for now. But he unnecessarily and disturbingly added the word “absolutely.” Why did he go to that length?
That comment seemed to indicate Gorsuch is not a full constitutional originalist. No originalist would ever make such a comment that appears to betray the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders – considering the travesty of the Obergefell decision.
Now we likely know why Trump also called Obergefell “settled law” in response to a question during a 60 Minutes interview. He had likely been talking to Gorsuch.
Justice Scalia had ripped the Obergefell decision to shreds for its inventions of nonexistent rights out of thin air, as he did with many other judicial activist decisions by his peers on the court and in lower courts. He described the decision as the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants." He added, "Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution? I don't know how you can get more extreme than that."
Scalia even went so far as to argue that legalizing same-sex "marriage" was a “threat to American democracy.”
Gorsuch's criticism of Trump
It is understandable that Gorsuch would be circumspect during his confirmation hearings in response to questions about particular cases, but he has seemed to exhibit a pro-judicial arrogance, deferring too much to the reputations and status of justices who in very many cases in these times do not at all deserve such deference.
Many deserve harsh criticism, if not condemnation and censure. It is long overdue.
I was taken aback by Gorsuch’s publicly expressed rebuke of Donald Trump’s legitimate criticisms of the court ruling that rejected his first immigration Executive Order.
Trump accused the appellate court of being “so political.” He labeled a judge who ruled on his executive order a “so-called judge” and referred to the ruling as “ridiculous.”
Perhaps Trump should not have used the term “so-called judge,” but the ruling was indeed “ridiculous” and totally out-of-order. It clearly violated established presidential privilege and was a raw abuse of the powers of the court for partisan and ideological intentions.
It was about time someone in high authority called judicial activist justices to account. They have been destroying the rule of law in America and trashing the Constitution. For years they have been far overstepping their Constitutional authority.
Gorsuch told a senator that the president’s comments were “demoralizing and disheartening.” Did he really have to go that far? Why could he not have acknowledged that yes, there have been many very questionable rulings by activist judges in recent decades?
The Washington Post wrote that “Gorsuch ‘stated very emotionally and strongly his belief in his fellow judges’ integrity and the principle of judicial independence.”’ Really? All judges, given the many outrageous decisions we have seen?
Justice Scalia never held back and had no regard for popular opinions, political correctness or what the other justices thought about him. As well, his solid Catholic Christian formation taught him about right and wrong and his serious duty to the American people and to God to honor the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. He was not perfect, but he frequently issued highly prinicipled legal opinions.
Gorsuch’s comment that Obergefell “is absolutely settled law" could be seen to have been insulting to judicial conservatives. I would go so far to say it indicated clear danger about how he would rule on the court – on certain issues.
Following are some of the stories that we published on the Obergefell decision:
Obergefell is so awful that it makes Dred Scott look like a piece of lawyerly precision
Trump undermined Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito in saying marriage issue ‘settled’
Serious questions about Gorsuch and homosexuality
There have also been other signs about Gorsuch that too many have tended to pooh-pooh as being significant. Well, they are important signs.
A Feb. 11 New York Times article indicated that Gorsuch is pro-homosexual. This may explain his excessively accepting comment on the Obergefell decision.
In a LifeSite article on the Times report, we noted,
“in his personal relationships with homosexual friends and co-workers, Judge Gorsuch has been very approving of homosexual relationships.”
Gorsuch also attends a socially liberal Episcopal church in Boulder, led by a pro-LGBT female pastor, Rev. Jill Springer, who reportedly supports homosexual “marriage.”
Matthew Hoffman, in his in-depth report on Gorsuch expands on Springer's liberal excesses,
"According to an exposé published by the Daily Mail, she openly supports homosexual “marriage” and conducts blessings of same-sex couples, and attended the ultra-feminist “Women’s March on Washington” to protest the Trump presidency. She also denounced “criticism and disrespectful rhetoric” regarding Islam following the San Bernadino terrorist attack in 2015. The Washington Post’s own investigation of the parish also found that the pastor engages in leftist political activism."
And yet, Hoffman reports,
"Gorsuch and his family are far from being mere passive participants in the church. Gorsuch himself serves as an usher, and his wife as a lector, and his two daughters have served as acolytes during worship services."
and
"The Episcopal Church has also issued statements opposing any legal restrictions on the killing of the unborn, and holding that abortion can be justified in cases of risks to the physical or mental health of the mother, rape, incest, or fetal malformation."
There is no way that Justice Scalia approved of homosexual relationships. He would never have regularly attended such a liberal Church as Gorsuch has and Scalia would have run from a parish with a pro-LGBT pastor that strongly supports homosexual “marriage” and opposes any legal restrictions on abortion.
Scalia, from his orthodox Catholic Christian formation and affiliation, knew right from wrong and was frequently outspoken about such matters when circumstances demanded it. He did not deprive those who needed to hear uncomfortable truths from the charity of those truths.
The LifeSite article on the NY Times report continued that,
… Gorsuch reacted when his close friend and former Harvard classmate Phil Berg told him that he had a "boyfriend."
"He [Gorsuch] didn't skip a beat," Berg said, saying that the conversation led to a "special bond" between he and Gorsuch. "It was a huge deal for me, and it made a lasting impression."
Similarly, the Harvard Crimson reports that Gorsuch offered Harvard classmate Berg "unwavering support" when Berg "came out" to him as homosexual.
and,
Along the same lines, Joshua Goodbaum, a former clerk to Gorsuch, told the Times that his boss was “thrilled” for him and his “husband” when they got same-sex-“married” in 2014:
“He was actually kind of syrupy about it. I remember him saying, ‘You’re going to see how wonderful this is for your relationship,’’’ Goodbaum said.
Gorsuch is said to be a strong proponent of Natural Law. His above noted statements and actions on homosexuality defy that claim.
As well, no authentic, believing Christian would ever offer such affirmation to persons engaged in behavior that threatened serious emotional, psychological, and physical harm, and especially devastating spiritual harm.
I cannot remotely fathom Justice Antonin Scalia ever having been so blind to his sacred responsibility to his fellow man as Neil Gorsuch appeared to exhibit (if these quotes are true) in response to his friends with same-sex attractions.
I hope my concerns about Gorsuch are not as serious as they seem, but the things noted here cannot be ignored.
We must continue to pray for the best outcome for the next justice of the Supreme Court. May God’s will be done on this because of the crucial importance of this and future Supreme Court nominations for the welfare of the United States.
Yes. I certainly agree with that statement.
+1
Even worse, that the Senate might use the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. If they are going to use that, give us Judge Roy Moore!
The Borking of this man continues with people supposedly on our side. Whose side are they on?
Anti-Gorsuch Activist’s ‘Dark Money’ Hypocrisy
freebeacon ^ | March 26, 2017 | Bill McMorris
Posted on 3/26/2017, 10:15:39 AM by MarvinStinson
Demos does not disclose its donors
The head of a liberal dark money group criticized Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch because of his stance on political disclosures and Citizens United.
Heather McGhee, the president of Demos, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirming Judge Gorsuch would lead to “big money corrupting our politics completely.”
“The Supreme Court’s activism in striking down safeguards is what has brought us to this perilous place in our history,” she said. “It’s hard to imagine things getting worse and yet the prospect of a lifetime seat for Judge Gorsuch has given us a glimpse.”
McGhee condemned the outsized influence wealthy donors play in the political process and criticized the idea that forcing organizations to disclose their donors could lead to political intimidation from activists.
“[Gorsuch] was quite evasive—in fact, to my dismay [he] raised the idea that disclosure chills speech,” McGhee said. “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage without which democracy is doomed.”
Demos does not disclose its donors and was cited by the Center for Public Integrity as a dark money group in January. A review of the 501(c)3 non-profit group’s most recent tax forms shows that Demos garnered more than $7 million in contributions in 2014. Seven individuals accounted for more than half of those donations. The group highlighted those seven donations—ranging from $250,000 to $1.425 million—in its documents, but left the identities of those donors blank. The group paid more than $3 million in salaries and wages in 2014, including McGhee’s $240,000 compensation.
Demos did not respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it planned on adopting disclosure policies in line with the ideology it was promoting. Citizen Audit, a group that tracks non-profit disclosures by examining group expenditures, has identified 13 groups that have contributed to Demos in the past. The group has benefitted from the largesse of major liberal donors, including the Rockefeller and Tides foundation, as well as organized labor groups, including the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Workers and United Food and Commercial Workers.
Gorsuch clashed with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) over the donation disclosures at Tuesday’s confirmation hearing. When Whitehouse asked him about whether he favored enhanced disclosure, Gorsuch said the legislature should address disclosure requirements, adding, “Senator, with all due respect, the ball’s in your court.” Whitehouse introduced McGhee to the committee on Thursday by condemning the “dark money” campaign that conservative activists have used to back the nomination.
“We have seen reports of a $10 million political campaign to try to influence the Senate in Judge Gorsuch’s favor through a front group,” Whitehouse said in his introduction of McGhee. “We don’t know who the real donors are. It’s dark money that is behind that entire operation.”
Whitehouse was referring to the $10 million campaign led by the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative judicial watchdog that has spent millions on ads urging Democratic senators up for re-election in states that Trump won to support Gorsuch. Carrie Severino, the group’s leader, said the group follows the federal government’s disclosure requirements and does not disclose its donors to protect their privacy.
“We fully comply with all disclosure requirements. We are also ethically bound to protect the privacy rights of our supporters, and will continue to do so,” she said in a statement.
Demos is not the first group to accuse Gorsuch of siding with political mega-donors at the expense of the rest of the country. In February, Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced she would oppose Gorsuch’s nomination because of his record on campaign finance and religious liberty issues.
“For years, powerful interests have executed a full-scale assault on the integrity of our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and the powerful,” she said in a statement. “We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence. Based on the long and well-established record of Judge Gorsuch, I will oppose his nomination.”
Sen. Warren’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, serves as the chairman of Demos’ board of trustees.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3538232/posts
I quickly concluded that Gorsuch is another potential David Souter. His pathetic hugs and crying to his wife doesn’t change that opinion. He is weak and affected by liberal arguments, particularly on the critical issue of immigration. I am deeply concerned about his impending tenure.
In my book he’s another Kennedy.
Which means when Kennedy steps down we’d better get another Scalia, just to tread water.
In my book he’s another Kennedy.
Which means when Kennedy steps down we’d better get another Scalia, just to tread water.
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., asked Gorsuch to explain how his views on “marriage equality” have changed since 2004, when the George W. Bush administration was pushing for ballot initiatives that banned the practice in states.
Gorsuch replied that sharing his “personal views” would send a misleading signal to the American people that he might be inclined to rule one way or another on future cases that come up on the subject.
Right now it is settled law, however, that does not mean that upon hearing compelling evidence he will not rule against the "settled law" as it exists today. This is how a judge should respond, especially to a hypothetical, because the facts should be what carry the ruling, not personal feelings.
There is no way anyone can be 100% sure of these SCOTUS picks. We have been fooled in the past.
At this point, he as as good as we know.
I want my judges to be good, but not goody two-shoes...and bad-ass when they have to be.
Leni
That there is no liberal support for him tells my much of what I need to know.
I have the same concerns. On gay marriage, a 5-4 decision that eviscerates centuries of legal tradition, is suddenly “absolutely settled law”?
I heard on radio while traveling for seven hours, that there were more conservative resumes on the list of potentials.
Trump and team decided to start with a more moderate among those conservatives.
I am very nervous. No president is guaranteed a straight arrow. All nominees are a nail biting risk to morals, God, and country.
I miss Big Elk. I see your name and I think of him. You were such a friend to him. I was a swooning fan of his great mind. RIP.
I would’ve liked to have seen Cruz nominated.
He’s made some horrible statements on decisions implying illegal immigrants have constitutional rights to stay in the country.
I agree, and I am a traditional Catholic...BULL!!!
Settled law is a meaningless phrase. It’s used to placate leftwingers who don’t understand understand the law.
These "interrogations" are not supposed to be a tip off as to how he will vote.
They're only for the purpose of finding out if he is knowledgeable and a good guy. Congress sure abuses the system.
Clinton would have appointed someone worse. That I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.